PHOENIX — A state judge late Friday ordered that description of a proposed tax hike for transit projects be rewritten to exclude a calculation of how much the levy will increase.
|
|
But Burke said such calculations “are likely to mislead many voters.’’ And he accepted the arguments by Paul Eckstein, the attorney for transit tax backers, that the figure was deliberately inserted by Republican lawmakers to convince voters to reject the levy.
Friday’s ruling is not likely to be the last word: The Republicans who control the Legislative Council — the ones who approved the language Burke found unacceptable — are weighing an appeal.
At the heart of the fight is a legal requirement for the committee, composed of state lawmakers, to craft an “impartial analysis’’ of every measure on the ballot for inclusion in a pamphlet mailed to the home of every registered voter.
That pamphlet will contain the actual language of each proposition. But the explanations are considered crucial given that voters may not read — or be able to interpret — many of these measure which are lengthy and complex.
This initiative, for example, runs 15 pages.
Mike Braun, who represents the Legislative Council, told Burke the law requires the panel to not only explain each ballot measure but also how approval would affect existing law. He said that calculation is “helpful’’ by telling voters that whatever they are paying in state sales taxes would increase by 17.8 percent if Proposition 203 is adopted.
Eckstein, however, told the judge the accuracy of the calculation is beside the point.
“An analysis can be 100 percent accurate, and it can be unfair and misleading,’’ he said.
Burke agreed.
For example, he said, raising the tax rate from one cent per dollar to two cents has an “absolute percentage increase’’ of percentage point. But it has a “relative percentage increase’’ of 100 percent.
“As the original tax gets smaller the relative percentage increase skyrockets,’’ the judge wrote. “Many voters are likely to confuse relative and absolute percent increases.’’
Eckstein said the decision to include that 17.8 percent figure was no accident.
He pointed out that the version adopted was supported only by the Republicans on the committee, who are in the majority, and who oppose the increased tax. By contrast, the tax is supported by many Democrats, including Gov. Janet Napolitano.
“Everyone knows what’s going on here,’’ Eckstein said.
“This is a proposition that is supported by the governor,’’ he continued. “And the Republicans in the Legislature want to slap her down.’’
Burke agreed, saying the analysis “is drafted to exaggerate the tax increase and confuse voters in order to affect the outcome o the public vote.’’
The judge did not address Eckstein’s other request that the explanation of the measure be reworked to first spell out the various road and transit improvements that Proposition 203 would fund. Eckstein said voters should be told all that before being informed about the tax hike that would finance all that.
The biggest chunk of the $42.6 billion that would be raised over 30 years — more than $23 billion — is specifically earmarked for “strategic highway projects,’’ including freeways and other state highways that will be identified as priorities. Cities, counties and tribes would divide up another $8.5 billion in revenues to spend on their own priorities.
The balance includes money for bikeways, scenic roads, protecting neighborhoods — and more than $7.6 billion for mass transit, with the lion’s share of that designated for proposed intercity passenger rail service.
The initiative does not spell out a specific route. But backer have said the idea is to have it run from Tucson through Phoenix and perhaps beyond to Wickenburg, Prescott and even into Norther Arizona.
Backers of the tax hike have so far collected at least $965,00 for the campaign, much of that from construction companies that could get some of the contracts. At this point there is no organized opposition.
Comments